Produced fluid, such as water, from offshore oil platforms can contain toxic heavy metals, for instance, mercury. In the Gulf of Mexico, mercury levels rarely exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). However, in the Gulf of Thailand, the average concentration of mercury in produced water can range from about 200 ppb to about 2,000 ppb.
Discharge of mercury into the marine environment in U.S. territorial waters is currently regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act via the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit process. According to environmental standards under 40 CFR §131.36 for marine environment, limits include about 1800 ppb for acute exposure and about 25 ppb for chronic exposure. International standards for mercury discharges in produced water, on the other hand, range from about 5 ppb in Thailand to about 300 ppb in the North Sea.
Produced water often contains oil that was removed with the water during the bulk oil/water separation process. As an example, the produced water from the North Sea fields contains about 15-30 parts per million (ppm) dispersed oil with benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX); naphthalene, phenanthrene, dibenzothiophene (NPD), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), phenol, and organic acid concentrations ranging from about 0.06 ppm to about 760 ppm. Additionally, these produced waters contain toxic heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, lead, and copper in concentrations ranging from less than about 0.1 ppb to about 82 ppb. The presence of a complex mix of constituents coupled with a high concentration of dissolved salts can present a challenge for heavy metal removal using currently available conventional technologies.
In particular, existing technologies for metal and mercury removal from diluted wastewater include activated carbon adsorption, sulfur-impregnated activated carbon, microemulsion liquid membranes, ion exchange, and colloid precipitate flotation. These technologies may not be suitable for water treatment because of poor metal loading (e.g., metal uptake less than 20% of the mass of the adsorber material) and selectivity, (interference from other abundant ions in groundwater). In addition, mercury may be present in species other than elemental. So the method must be able to remove these other species, such as methyl mercury etc. Furthermore, they lack stability for metal-laden products so that they are not disposable directly as a permanent waste form. As a result, secondary treatment is required to dispose or stabilize the separated mercury or the mercury-laden products. Mercury removal from non-aqueous sludge, adsorbed liquids, or partially- or fully-stabilized sludges, and mercury-contaminated soil is difficult because (1) the non-aqueous nature of some wastes prevents the easy access of leaching agents, (2) some waste streams with large volumes make the thermal desorption process expensive, and (3) the treatment of some waste streams are technically difficult because of the nature of the wastes.
Mercury removal from offgas in vitrifiers and in mercury thermal desorption processes is usually accomplished through active carbon adsorption. However, the carbon-based adsorbents are only effective enough to remove 75 to 99.9% of the mercury with a loading capacity equivalent to 1-20% of the mass of the adsorber material. A last step, mercury amalgamation using expensive gold, usually is needed to achieve the EPA air release standard. A carbon bed usually is used later in the offgas system, where the temperature is generally lower than 250° F. In the sulfur impregnated carbon process, mercury is adsorbed to the carbon, which is much weaker than the covalent bond formed with, for instance, surface functionalized mesoporous material. As a result, the adsorbed mercury needs secondary stabilization because the mercury-laden carbon does not have the desired long-term chemical durability due to the weak bonding between the mercury and active carbon. In addition, a large portion of the pores in the activated carbon are large enough for the entry of microbes to solubilize the adsorbed mercury-sulfur compounds. The mercury loading is limited to about 0.2 g/g of the materials.
The microemulsion liquid membrane technique uses an oleic acid microemulsion liquid membrane containing sulfuric acid as the internal phase to reduce the wastewater mercury concentration from about 460 ppm to about 0.84 ppm. However, it involves multiple steps of extraction, stripping, demulsification, and recovery of mercury by electrolysis and uses large volumes of organic solvents. The liquid membrane swelling has a negative impact on extraction efficiency.
The slow kinetics of the metal-ion exchanger reaction requires long contacting times. This process also generates large volumes of organic secondary wastes. One ion exchange process utilizes Duolite™ GT-73 ion exchange organic resin to reduce the mercury level in wastewater from about 2 ppm to below about 10 ppb. Oxidation of the resin results in substantially reduced resin life and an inability to reduce the mercury level to below the permitted level of less than about 0.1 ppb. The mercury loading is also limited because the high binding capacity of most soils to mercury cations makes the ion-exchange process ineffective, especially when the large amounts of Ca2+ from soil saturate the cation capacity of the ion exchanger. In addition, the mercury-laden organic resin does not have the ability to resist microbe attack. Thus, mercury can be released into the environment if it is disposed of as a waste form. In addition to interference from other cations in the solution besides the mercury-containing ions, the ion exchange process is simply not effective in removing neutral mercury compounds, such as HgCl2, Hg(OH)2, and organic mercury species, such as methylmercury, which is the most toxic form of mercury. This ion-exchange process is also not effective in removing mercury from non-aqueous solutions and adsorbing liquids.
The reported removal of metal from water by colloid precipitate flotation reduces mercury concentration from about 160 ppb to about 1.6 ppb. This process involves the addition of HCl to adjust the wastewater to pH 1, addition of Na2S and oleic acid solutions to the wastewater, and removal of colloids from the wastewater. In this process, the treated wastewater is potentially contaminated with the Na2S, oleic acid, and HCl. The separated mercury needs further treatment to be stabilized as a permanent waste form.
Acidic halide solution leaching and oxidative extractions can also be used in mobilizing mercury in soils. For example KI/I2 solutions enhance dissolution of mercury by oxidization and complexation. Other oxidative extractants based on hypochlorite solutions have also been used in mobilizing mercury from solid wastes. Nevertheless, no effective treatment technology has been developed for removing the mercury contained in these wastes. Since leaching technologies rely upon a solubilization process wherein the solubilized target (e.g. mercury) reaches a dissolution/precipitation equilibrium between the solution and solid wastes, further dissolution of the contaminants from the solid wastes is prevented once equilibrium is reached. In addition, soils are usually a good target ion absorber that inhibits the transfer of the target ion from soils to solution.
The removal of mercury from nonaqueous liquids, adsorbed liquids, soils, or partially-or-fully-stabilized sludge at prototypic process rates has been lacking. This is mainly because the mercury contaminants in actual wastes are much more complicated than the mercury systems addressed by many laboratory-scale tests that are usually developed based on some simple mercury salts. The actual mercury contaminants in any actual wastes almost always contain inorganic mercury (e.g., divalent cation Hg2+, monovalent Hg22+, and neutral compounds such as HgCl2, Hg[OH]2,); organic mercury, such as methylmercury (e.g., CH3 HgCH3 or CH3 Hg+) as a result of enzymatic reaction in the sludge; and metallic mercury, because of reduction. Since many laboratory technologies are developed for only one form of mercury, demonstrations using actual wastes have not been successful.
Other metals that are of interest for remediation and industrial separations include but are not limited to silver, lead, uranium, plutonium, neptunium, americium, cadmium and combinations thereof. Present methods of separation include but are not limited to ion exchangers, precipitation, membrane separations, and combinations thereof. These methods usually have the disadvantages of low efficiencies, complex procedures, and high operation costs.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to provide a system and method that can be used to remove heavy metals, such as mercury, cadmium, and lead from complex waste fluids, such as produced water, in a significant amount and in a cost effective manner.